XPost: alt.seduction.fast, alt.seduction.outfoxing, soc.men   
   XPost: alt.college.fraternities   
   From: no_way@jose.com   
      
   > >   
   >> > What about Helen (or whatever her name was?)   
   >>   
   >> Not much talk about any women in his life.   
   >   
   > that's because there no action with women in his life. his seduction   
   > "expertise" is nothing more than a ruse, a hollow scam to separate men   
   > from   
   > their money and pump up his already overblown sense of self importance   
   > into   
   > him hoping that the world doesn't see that ray really doesn't matter.   
   >   
   > He talks about everything else   
   >> at great  length, but not Hellen.  apparently she is not a part of his   
   >> current existance.  I have actually never seen much on her.   
   >   
   > "helen" is nothing more than ray's digitized voice put on tape. yet   
   > another   
   > one of scabby's flim-flam jobs to separate the unknowing from their cash   
   > while he hypocritically whines about the "greed" of those who do honest   
   > business. i personally feel that anyone who actually paid money for a   
   > female   
   > voice doing "sexy hypnosis" (whatever the hell that is) should sue him for   
   > fraud.   
   >   
      
   That is a very interesting thought.  "Helen" is discoverable too.  The fact   
   that she is part of his business would make her vulnerable to at least   
   makiing an appearance and if she turns out to be just him acting as a woman   
   his credibility would be destroyed.  Not that he has much anyway, but if he   
   fails to produce her, that whole "spoilation of evidence" think will be back   
   in his face again.  I'm told that his case is almost certainly fatally   
   weakened already as his continual "nuking" of his posts so that nothing can   
   be verified destroys his ability at least to challenge anything that does   
   turn up, or has been archived by private individuals.  Da Filez as it was   
   put.   
      
   For your information, this is what "spoilation of evidence" is.....   
   FOURTH CIRCUIT RECOGNIZES FEDERAL LAW OF SPOLIATION   
     Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2001)   
      
   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court of Maryland's dismissal of a   
   personal injury claim against the defendant auto manufacturer on the grounds   
   of spoliation of the evidence.   
      
   The Court concluded that a federal law of spoliation applied because the   
   power to sanction for spoliation derives from the inherent power of the   
   court, not substantive law. However, the Court adopted the articulation of   
   spoliation principles in part from New York law.   
      
   Spoliation refers to the destruction or material alteration of evidence or   
   to the failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence in pending   
   or reasonably foreseeable litigation. The right to impose sanctions for   
   spoliation arises from the court's inherent power to control the judicial   
   process, and the underlying policy of preservation of the integrity of the   
   judicial process in order to retain confidence that the process works to   
   uncover the truth.   
      
   In the Fourth Circuit's view, while the spoliation of evidence may give rise   
   to court imposed sanctions deriving from this inherent power, the acts of   
   spoliation do not themselves give rise in civil cases to substantive claims   
   or defenses.   
      
   The District court has broad discretion in choosing an appropriate sanction   
   for spoliation, but the applicable sanction should be molded to served the   
   underlying rationales. A court must find some degree of fault to impose   
   sanctions.   
      
   The duty to preserve material evidence arises not only during litigation but   
   also extends to that period before the litigation when a party reasonably   
   should know that the evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation.   
      
   If a party cannot fulfill this duty to preserve because he does not own or   
   control the evidence, he still has an obligation to give the opposing party   
   notice of access to the evidence or of the possible destruction of the   
   evidence.   
      
   In this case, the plaintiff was injured while driving his landlady's   
   vehicle. Notwithstanding the anticipation of the litigation against GM,   
   neither plaintiff's attorney nor plaintiff took any steps to preserve the   
   vehicle or to notify GM of the existence of the vehicle and the potential   
   claim until almost three years later when suit was filed. The Fourth Circuit   
   agreed that the spoliation here was highly prejudicial, and denied GM access   
   to the only evidence from which it could develop its defenses adequately.   
      
   So, here is a potential stumbling block for all the Federal litigation, as   
   the Plaintiff has already moved to recuse the Judge, and failed to hire an   
   attorney as suggested by the court so that coherent filings can be made.  I   
   don't believe that once "nuked" the Plaintiff can restore without   
   modification, the posts, therefore it would appear that spoilation would be   
   an easy way to dispose of the case and keep it from being reopened.   
      
   One also wonders what possible relevance this entire thread would have in   
   the context to the many USENET groups that it has been spammed to.  This   
   appears, as usual, to be nothing more than a spammed opportunity to throw   
   the various Ray Gordon spam taglines in front of people who are not involved   
   with kooksuits.   
      
   BM   
      
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)